DC Unrest Megathread

[Santander]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1348731325440733184

lmfao @ caring that much about golf

This is a guy who's probably in the top 1% of golfers at his age but still feels a need to cheat when playing socially.

[Santander]

I don't mean this in a vindictive way, although I understand how it might seem like that, but has anyone noticed that Trump supporters are really trashy? Even Trump himself seems to have noticed it, as he reportedly expressed disgust on aesthetic grounds over how “low class” his supporters looked. But it is about behavior as well as appearance. In my view if you really love Trump, and you want to represent him, you have the obligation to look good and carry yourself well, since your behavior reflects on those of Trump supporters as a whole.

This really isn't the case, as much as rich elites would like it to be so.

His supporters may have looked "low-class," but I have the feeling the median income of the mob was probably higher than the national median simply because they could afford to be off work right after the holidays and the crowd was overwhelmingly white.

Most were lower middle class and blue collar.

You don't go to college and get a white collar job only to throw it away by joining a riot.

Also, this is slow time for a lot of places. My job gives me 12 personal/sick days a year so if I wanted to attend the rally in Washington, that doesn't make me privilaged

First of all, these people were almost all white (making them better off than average to start with), and most of them were not from the DC area, meaning they not only could afford to, but were willing to spend money to travel for political reasons. Some of them were staying at places like the Willard Hotel, ffs. No, most of these were "normal" people with jobs/businesses and families who lead "respectable" lives. That is one of the scariest things.

[Santander]

But, but, the rioters were economically anxious people with nothing better to do!

[Santander]

Yeah, Trump is out of here.

https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1349107100593647621

Even after a riot where his own life was threatened, the turtle finds a partisan reason to support impeachment, lol.

[Santander]

https://twitter.com/NaphiSoc/status/1348741118545039365

Thank GOD. I was so worried this guy was not going to be caught. I hope he rots in prison for a long, long time.

How ing disgusting is it to commit murder with a fire extinguisher while wearing a fire department hat?

[Santander]

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1349087833055748096

I can't believe it's not Ryan Lochte.

Lochte knows what the inside of a jail looks like.

[Santander]

Anyone else watch the DOJ/FBI briefing earlier? High energy, massive FF comments from the Acting US Attorney. Basically, they are expecting hundreds of criminal charges, and many of the people arrested for trespassing or other misdemeanors can expect felony charges to come.

[Santander]

I find it extremely unlikely McConnell will actively lobby Senators to vote for conviction.

[Santander]

I find it extremely unlikely McConnell will actively lobby Senators to vote for conviction.

Maybe not but what could happen is enough show up to convict for a quorum, but most of the rest of the Republicans stay home so they can wash their hands of it. Can still be convicted with 2/3 of “those present” according to Constitution.

Assuming no Republicans vote for it (not gonna happen but provides an upper bound) and Warnock and Ossoff aren’t sworn in, 28 senators would need to not show up.

27.  Perdue's already out of the Senate since his term ended on Jan. 3.

If Trump somehow gets convicted, it'll definitely be sliding scale math.

[Santander]

Members of Congress should be exempt from security checks.

[Santander]

Members of Congress should be exempt from security checks.

Why?

This shouldn't require any explanation.

[Santander]

Members of Congress should be exempt from security checks.

Why?

This shouldn't require any explanation.

Not after the intelligence reports that the insurrectionists had inside help.  

- Members of Congress are allowed to be armed in the Capitol, and have access to everything, making any security search completely irrelevant
- Security exists to protect lawmakers from external threats, not the other way around
- They may be carrying sensitive documents that cannot be revealed to a random police officer
- If a member of Congress really wanted to cause damage, they don't need a gun to do it
- Capitol buildings exist for the sole purpose of allowing members of Congress to do their business. They do not need to explain themselves to anyone, and their movements should not be questioned or hindered in any way outside emergencies.

The nation's business should not be held up by irrational and unnecessary security checks. This is as ridiculous as making POTUS go through the same security checks as tourists when returning to the White House. Or a foreign ambassador, or Cabinet Secretary, or member of Congress, for that matter.

[Santander]

The most galling part about the Congressmen getting bent out of shape over the metal detectors is that they have routinely passed legislation subjecting American citizens to these kinds of security checks in the public domain, but then throw a tantrum when the security state imposes itself on their own workplace.

They have to go through security like everyone else at airports. The difference between them and you is that they are members of Congress, not a visitor or staff. The buildings were literally built for them (in their capacity as the people's representatives, of course), and security exists to protect them from you. Also, 535 publicly-known members of Congress is an infinitely smaller security risk than the many thousands of staff and visitors that enter the Capitol during a single term.

[Santander]

The most galling part about the Congressmen getting bent out of shape over the metal detectors is that they have routinely passed legislation subjecting American citizens to these kinds of security checks in the public domain, but then throw a tantrum when the security state imposes itself on their own workplace.

They have to go through security like everyone else at airports. The difference between them and you is that they are members of Congress, not a visitor or staff. The buildings were literally built for them (in their capacity as the people's representatives, of course), and security exists to protect them from you. Also, 535 publicly-known members of Congress is an infinitely smaller security risk than the many thousands of staff and visitors that enter the Capitol during a single term.

But where is the "unconstitutional" part of their argument?

Obviously, that is a bit melodramatic and a stretch, but it doesn't really have anything to do with security in principle.

[Santander]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1349174501745938433

Members can bring guns to Capitol grounds, but not the floor of the House. (and let's face it, the prohibition on the floor is more a matter of decorum than security)

I read up more on this, and it seems that the metal detectors were installed by the House Sergeant-at-Arms, and applies only when entering the House floor, not the Capitol buildings themselves. So basically, Republican members are being babies in a way, but I still don't see why the honor system cannot be used for members like it was in the past.

[Santander]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1349174501745938433

Members can bring guns to Capitol grounds, but not the floor of the House. (and let's face it, the prohibition on the floor is more a matter of decorum than security)

I read up more on this, and it seems that the metal detectors were installed by the House Sergeant-at-Arms, and applies only when entering the House floor, not the Capitol buildings themselves. So basically, Republican members are being babies in a way, but I still don't see why the honor system cannot be used for members like it was in the past.

You seriously don't see a problem with letting members of Congress carry guns on the floor? Do you want a murder to happen?

When is the last time a murder happened on the floor of the House or Senate? And if someone committed murder, do you think it would more likely be by a member of Congress or a staffer/visitor?

Guns should definitely not be allowed on the floor - but it's a matter of decorum, not safety, in the case of members.

[Santander]

https://twitter.com/ESCochrane/status/1349371666481217544

Trump cultists take note: this is what real patriotism looks like - sleeping in shifts on marble floors to defend democracy. I never thought I would see a day where I would see soldiers have to defend American democracy so literally.

[Santander]

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1349492130578919425

Too little, too late. Trump appears genuinely chastised for the first time in his Presidency.

The statement he should've released last Wednesday.

[Santander]

I don't understand why members of the House need to be fined for refusing to walk through metal detectors.

Just deny entry.  Can they walk onto a plane without going thru one?

They are lawfully elected members of a national legislature, not customers conducting a transaction.

It also seems like a petty tyranny, which is why I asked about it. What conceivable safety benefit is there to scanning the bodies of every member?

Sounds to me like a lot of republican politicians as well as posters on this forum have never held a real job before. Any American who works at a large plant, factory, shipping or sorting facility, warehouse, etc has to go through a metal detector, among other measures. I got through a metal detector and I'm scanned for a temperature check automatically as I scan my ID badge every day. I do realize that these are the kinds of working/middle class jobs that most republican politicians would never come into contact with at any point in their privileged, coddled lives, so I guess it's understandable.

lol, I've been to plenty of large manufacturing facilities and never once had to go through a metal detector.  (I suppose there may be security checks to prevent theft in some places, but the threat is outbound in that case, not inbound)

Members of Congress are not employees. They are the reason the Capitol buildings, and Capitol security, exist. It is a ridiculous waste of time, and pure petulance by Pelosi, to demand members go through a metal detector. Why not strip search them? A plastic explosive wouldn't set off a metal detector...

As Averroes said, if you can't trust them not to murder on the House floor, you can't trust them to write and vote on legislation, at which point you might as well abolish Congress altogether.

[Santander]

I don't trust them to do this either, though.

I'm happy to see you've joined the ranks of libertarian divine right monarchists. We allow ourselves to be bicoastal liberal elitists once in a while to attend cocktail parties.

[Santander]

I don't understand why members of the House need to be fined for refusing to walk through metal detectors.

Just deny entry.  Can they walk onto a plane without going thru one?

They are lawfully elected members of a national legislature, not customers conducting a transaction.

It also seems like a petty tyranny, which is why I asked about it. What conceivable safety benefit is there to scanning the bodies of every member?

Sounds to me like a lot of republican politicians as well as posters on this forum have never held a real job before. Any American who works at a large plant, factory, shipping or sorting facility, warehouse, etc has to go through a metal detector, among other measures. I got through a metal detector and I'm scanned for a temperature check automatically as I scan my ID badge every day. I do realize that these are the kinds of working/middle class jobs that most republican politicians would never come into contact with at any point in their privileged, coddled lives, so I guess it's understandable.

Members of Congress are not employees. They are the reason the Capitol buildings, and Capitol security, exist. It is a ridiculous waste of time, and pure petulance by Pelosi, to demand members go through a metal detector. Why not strip search them? A plastic explosive wouldn't set off a metal detector...

I keep seeing you make this....uh.....let's call it a 'claim', and it's gotten no less ridiculous/incorrect no matter how many times you repeat it.

They are paid by the federal government. They receive a pension from the federal government. They receive health insurance from the federal government. The fact that they are elected does not mean they are not employees. They work for their constituents; they are paid by their constituents' taxes. On the "employment history" section of their resumes when they leave Congress I bet you they list their time as lawmakers. If you do "work", and you are "paid by someone else", you're an employee. Yours is an asinine line of argument, and repeating it incessantly does not make it true.

I don't see what receiving a paycheck from the federal government has to do with their standing. Are you disputing that the Capitol buildings solely exist for members of Congress to conduct their business? When I say members of Congress are not employees, it means that they don't work for Congress, they are Congress. The individual is merely a temporary officeholder, and the collective offices they hold are a self-governing branch of government. As Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has the power to make certain rules, but it is reasonable to expect the rules to be rational (well, not really, since we're talking about politicians here, but still). The House floor must have security, but that is to protect members from non-members, not each other.

[Santander]

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1349819969211662349

My hero Steve. When things get tough, you need a sonofabitch like Bannon in your corner.

Note Trump's defense of "Mr.Bannon". We are now in Bannon territory - when you're backed into a corner, the enemies are turning up the heat, and your friends are fleeing, it's good to have a Steve Bannon type on your side. That might explain the streetfighter tactics today - never back down, never apologize, never show weakness. If it works, Bannon will be stronger than ever. If it doesn't, Bannon will be out, and it'll be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency.

[Santander]

Maybe I'm missing a rules change, but I'm really failing to see what the basis is for GOP whining about the metal detectors and security screen before entering the House floor. Did the 117th Congress rules package change  the exception for members of Congress from the ban on firearms in the Capitol?

If it didn't, then the rules are the same as they've always been: members can carry their weapons in the Capitol, but not on the floor (without explicit permission from the Sergeant-at-Arms). Are the Republicans whiners claiming they've previously been violating the long-standing ban of firearms from the House chamber? If so, they should be expelled. Are they afraid to to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms for a waiver? If so, why? (I'm sure these men and women who want to carry firearms in the very chamber of the august body in which they serve are all extensively trained and regularly practiced in their use. Anything less would be grossly irresponsible.) Or is the firearms whining really a cover for something else they don't want revealed  by metal detectors? 

None of the members I've seen mentioned firearms in their complaints about the metal detectors.

[Santander]

US takes back its assertion that Capitol rioters wanted to 'capture and assassinate' officials

Justice Department prosecutors have formally walked back their assertion in a court filing that said Capitol rioters sought to "capture and assassinate elected officials."

A federal prosecutor in Arizona asked a magistrate judge in a hearing on Friday to strike the line in a recent court filing about defendant Jacob Anthony Chansley, a man who is alleged to have led some in the crowd in the first wave into the Capitol with a bullhorn while carrying a spear and wearing a fur headdress.

The entire line the prosecutors want to omit from their court filing is: "Strong evidence, including Chansley's own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States Government."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/15/politics/capitol-capture-assassinate-elected-officials/index.html

What?? Rioters storming the capitol floor arm with zip ties and chanting hang Mike Pence isn't enough of a clue?

My understanding is that the feds are extremely methodical and cautious on these matters? The sentence retracted is rather specific.

[Santander]

According to court filings, prosecutors allege that Brock posted on Facebook about buying body armor and a helmet for a "civil war" and believed the US election was being certified by a "hostile governing force."
In an interview with the New Yorker, Brock denied that he holds racist views. He repeated President Donald Trump's baseless assertions of election fraud.
Brock told the magazine that vandalism to the Capitol building "was not my intent." He said he had picked the restraints off the ground and intended to give them back to a police officer.

I love how he illegally storms the Capitol literally dressed for combat and then claims he just found the zip ties on the ground and was trying to return them to a cop. With lame excuses like that, no wonder his ex-wife reported him to the FBI.